Judgment :- The present writ petition has been filed by S. Ramanathilagam seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings dated 05.01.2004 bearing No.2734/PSD-B1/2001 to quash the same and further direct the first respondent to consider the petitioners name for appointment in the service of Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service, on the basis of the second respondents certificate viz., "Destitute Widow" certificate dated 13.01.2003. 2. The Petitioner S. Ramanathilagam w/o. Late Solamen Devanesan was selected as Junior Assistant by Group-IV examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for appointment as Junior Assistant during the year 1998-1999.The petitioner was instructed by letter dated 06.02.1999 to obtain a destitute widow certificate from the second respondent. Immediately the petitioner applied to the second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer for obtaining destitute widow certificate. In view of the Election to the State Assembly and Lok Sabha there was some delay in getting the certificate from the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner made representations dated 03.01.2001, 26.11.2002 and 14.1.2003 to the first respondent requesting time for submitting the destitute widow certificate. Finally on 13.01.2003, the petitioner got the certificate from the second respondent and the same was also forwarded to the first respondent on 14.01.2003 by Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due. 3. As per GO.Ms.395 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Per.S) Department dated 04.11.1993.The destitute widow ought to be given preference in the matter of appointment, but only in view of the delay caused by the second respondent in not issuing the destitute widow certificate, the petitioner was not able to get selected for the post of Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu Ministerial service, though she was selected by the TNPSC.TNPSC conducted examination on 31.01.1999, the petitioner was able to obtain the certificate only on 13.01.2003 which is after four years from the date of conducting the examination. Therefore, the respondents were not in a position to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. Therefore, the respondents were not in a position to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in obtaining the destitute widow certificate is not due to any lapses or carelessness on the part of the petitioner; the various representations repeatedly made by the petitioner would vividly go to show that only the second respondent was responsible for the delay and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable and on that basis prayed to issue a direction to the first respondent to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial service on the basis of the destitute widow certificate dated 13.01.2003. 5. Refuting the claim of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the petitioner was granted number of opportunities for production of the destitute widow certificate, but the petitioner did not produce the destitute widow certificate. The petitioner appeared for the TNPSC examination on 31.01.1999.Even in para 13 of the notification issued by TNPSC clearly mentions that application from candidates should be accompanied by the relevant certificates and destitute widow certificate is one such certificate to be produced by candidates who claim preference under the said category. The certificates are to be submitted along with the application to the first respondent. But, in the present case, the petitioner appeared for the examination conducted on 31.01.1999 without producing the destitute widow certificate. Therefore, the first respondent having considered the plight of the petitioner, for submission of the destitute widow certificate granted sufficient number of opportunities However, for almost 4 years the petitioner was not able to produce the destitute widow certificate. Therefore, the provisional selection was cancelled by TNPSC. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Para 4 of the notification issued by TNPSC makes it clear that every candidate claiming to be a "destitute widow" shall produce a certificate in the prescribed format obtained from the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Assistant Collector or the Sub-Collector concerned. 7. In the present case, for about four years, the petitioner did not produce the destitute widow certificate as required by the respondents. As the petitioner failed to produce the destitute widow certificate inspite of number of opportunities provided to her, the respondents cannot be directed to further extend the time and consider the case of the petitioner. 7. In the present case, for about four years, the petitioner did not produce the destitute widow certificate as required by the respondents. As the petitioner failed to produce the destitute widow certificate inspite of number of opportunities provided to her, the respondents cannot be directed to further extend the time and consider the case of the petitioner. In the above background, if the first respondent had passed the impugned order dated 05.01.2004, this court does not find any reason to gant the relief sought for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected MP is closed.